All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[hyped78]

You have one source, that is not a scientist, and whose "study" included EIGHT candidates. That's it. Small sample size. Poor science.

Here's Dr. Emma Hilton, explaining why Joanna Harper is factually and scientifically wrong, based on actual research.

So if Harper is your "proof" you don't have any.

It's not just Harper - I posted several. You can go back and read if you're interested. Or that DW article has other sources/ scientists besides Harper, if you look through it.

Regarding Emma Hilton, I've just linked to her Twitter, she even has this as her pinned tweet at the top, you can check it out:

Capture.JPG

[worstblogever]

... y'know, I think I'm just going to close the book on this silliness and not debate with someone who can't in good faith by saying it takes some chutzpah to act insulted when you're called a transphobe, when you made roughly a hundred posts on one forum over a day and a half explaining why trans-people need to be banned from sports.

That's some real commitment to this one issue that even J.K. Rowling doesn't have on a "doth protest too much" level.

[hyped78]

... y'know, I think I'm just going to close the book on this silliness and not debate with someone who can't in good faith by saying it takes some chutzpah to act insulted when you're called a transphobe, when you made roughly a hundred posts on one forum over a day and a half explaining why trans-people need to be banned from sports.

That's some real commitment to this one issue that even J.K. Rowling doesn't have on a "doth protest too much" level.

"why trans-people need to be banned from sports" - but that's not exactly what I said, now is it? tsc tsc

Any comments on "your" Dr. Emma Hilton? Seems like you chose a very strategic moment to "close the book" haha, what a coincidence.
Let me use your sentence right back at you - "So if Hilton is your "proof" you don't have any"

Oh, I'm not insulted by being called a "transphobe" at all, because 1) I'm not and 2) Because I don't feel insulted by random enraged/ triggered strangers with no arguments

The thing on Wikipedia is - if you want me to read something specific, please post the actual source articles, wikis have hundreds of articles at the bottom and 'everyone' can edit/ update the main text. I am open to reading opinions and conclusions from scientists on this topic, whatever they might be... unlike many people on this thread who only read whatever confirms their POV (aka cheerleading)

[CaptainEurope]

Oh yeah, the Maryland GOP nominated a known Neo-Confederate to be the next attorney general of Maryland last night.

And of course, a Trump-endorsed candidate was nominated to be the guy to take over for Larry Hogan.

I read an interesting theory that Todd Akin only failed because his party largely rejected his extremism. These new extremists have a chance of winning and further corrupting politics because the GOP now stands by them.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The irony about this whole business with transphobia as the current flavor of the month is that Qpublicans and like minded knuckledraggers didn’t know Lia Thomas existed, nor did they give even half a damn about the imagined threat of transwomen competing in sporting events until she won that swimming meet. Suddenly, right wingers, always on the lookout for a marginalized group to attack (and can’t fight back) had their bogeyman (no pun intended) to rail against, saying transwomen presented an unfair advantage against biological women, yadda, yadda, yadda. If Thomas lost or turned in a poor showing, there wouldn’t be this hue and cry from conservatives which is all bullshit, and everyone knows it. Hell, if the GQP thought they could get away with it, they’d try to rescind Title IX, keeping ALL women from playing sports, so I don’t want to hear this nonsense from Qpublicans which is transphobia, plain and simple.

[hyped78]

The irony about this whole business with transphobia as the current flavor of the month is that Qpublicans and like minded knuckledraggers didn’t know Lia Thomas existed, nor did they give even half a damn about the imagined threat of transwomen competing in sporting events until she won that swimming meet. Suddenly, right wingers, always on the lookout for a marginalized group to attack (and can’t fight back) had their bogeyman (no pun intended) to rail against, saying transwomen presented an unfair advantage against biological women, yadda, yadda, yadda. If Thomas lost or turned in a poor showing, there wouldn’t be this hue and cry from conservatives which is all bullshit, and everyone knows it. Hell, if the GQP thought they could get away with it, they’d try to rescind Title IX, keeping ALL women from playing sports, so I don’t want to hear this nonsense from Qpublicans which is transphobia, plain and simple.

Good post and I actually agree with most of it. But that it's a "all bullshit" is an opinion, not a fact.

What is a fact is that FINA, the world's swimming governing body, have recently banned trans from competing in women's swimming events. Are they all "Qpublicans", "bigots" and "transphobes"? The answer is obviously "no".

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...fter-fina-vote
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-human-rights

Is there no space for debate and further scientific clarification? Is everyone who doesn't agree, or wants to see more scientific evidence, a "transphobe", a "bigot"? Is the world only comprised of people that hold a certain view and then all others are "bigots"?

A lot of folks here are somehow confirming the survey that shows that Democrats are less tolerant than Republicans - which, in theory, should be the other way around.

[Tendrin]

Good post and I actually agree with most of it. But that it's a "all bullshit" is an opinion, not a fact.

What is a fact is that FINA, the world's swimming governing body, have recently banned trans from competing in women's swimming events. Are they all "Qpublicans", "bigots" and "transphobes"? The answer is obviously "no".

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...fter-fina-vote
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-human-rights

Is there no space for debate and further scientific clarification? Is everyone who doesn't agree, or wants to see more scientific evidence, a "transphobe", a "bigot"? Is the world only comprised of people that hold a certain view and then all others are "bigots"?

A lot of folks here are somehow confirming the survey that shows that Democrats are less tolerant than Republicans - which, in theory, should be the other way around.

Yeah, okay buddy. Keep repeatin the same links, already debated. We all saw them. And yes, FINA banning trans women is rooted in transphobic reactions to Lia Thomas.

[Tendrin]

On Sunday night, the international governing body of water sports (FINA) effectively banned transgender women from competition. FINA labelled it a "gender inclusion policy," but what it actually does is exclude trans women. It went into effect on Monday.

The new policy requires trans women athletes to have completed sex reassignment (transition) by the age of 12 to be eligible to compete in traditional women's categories. If trans women have experienced puberty as a male, FINA has decided these athletes may have an advantage.

In an attempt to not appear blatantly exclusionary, FINA has formed a working group to create an "open" category for trans women to be able to participate in some events. No one is quite sure what "open" entails — including FINA, which will spend the next six months trying to parse it out. It appears to be some haphazard "equal but separate" plot.

The reality is that all these barriers render it highly unlikely that trans women will have an opportunity to participate in any FINA events, which also include diving, water polo, artistic swimming, high diving and open water swimming. Trans activist and triathlete Chris Mosier tweeted: "This is the largest ban on trans women in sport we've seen to date."

Trans activists have been very vocal about how damaging and unfair these policies are. Invalidating someone's identity because the propaganda against trans communities is particularly vicious and unrelenting is not an acceptable reason to ban athletes from a sport they love.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/fina-trans...hmed-1.6495697

I am a hijab-wearing woman and women like me were banned from playing soccer and basketball at a professional level due to policies created largely by powerful men in boardrooms. They were usually ill-advised by women who campaigned that women in headscarves were all oppressed. They decided that hijab was dangerous and did not belong on the pitch or court. We know this is not true. They never consulted my community or people like me. And for years women's bodies were policed and they were excluded from sports. It will take generations to engage them in elite sports at those levels.

Fast forward to now. How many trans advocates and athletes were included in the creation of this policy? Who sits at the table of this working group? We know of a specific American "working group" that is viciously anti-trans and whose agenda is to exclude trans youth from sports altogether. Selective inclusion is not inclusion at all.

[hyped78]

Yeah, okay buddy. Keep repeatin the same links, already debated. We all saw them. And yes, FINA banning trans women is rooted in transphobic reactions to Lia Thomas.

I don't think we're buddies, at least not from your attitude towards me?

"FINA banning trans women is rooted in transphobic reactions to Lia Thomas." - this is your opinion. And that's fine, I accept your opinion, it's as valid as mine, but I respectfully disagree with your opinion and bias

It's funny because if I don't post links/ articles then I am just "spewing Fox News propaganda" or "making stuff up" or whatever. If/ when I provide links/ article, oh well then, "stop it stop it, we all saw them". Apparently now everyone saw them or wants to read what scientists are saying, either in favor, against, or inconclusive. As simple as that.

[hyped78]

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/fina-trans...hmed-1.6495697

Interesting. And....? You posted an opinion (again, opinion - that's fine - but it's not a fact) against the ban, I can post opinions in favor, we could be here all day.

Obviously you would just say that everyone who supports the FINA ban, or doesn't take a stance against it, are... yep, you guessed it, "bigots".

(for folks that don't like Fox News - and I don't like it either - you act a lot like the talking heads they have over there, just repeating the same hollow soundbytes over and over again)

[Tendrin]

"FINA banning trans women is rooted in transphobic reactions to Lia Thomas." - this is your opinion. And that's fine, I accept your opinion, it's as valid as mine, but I respectfully disagree with your opinion and bias

Are you suggesting you're not biased?

[hyped78]

Are you suggesting you're not biased?

OF COURSE I am!!!! I've been saying all along that these are just my opinions, not facts

[Tendrin]

OF COURSE I am!!!! I've been saying all along that these are just my opinions, not facts

And yet... /10char

[hyped78]

And yet... /10char

And yet they are my opinions and, unlike you and some of the other buddies here, I don't have a problem with saying that I might be wrong and that it's important to have debates and research on this topic (scientific debates and research, not us). Where you're saying "No debate... it's conclusive... bigots!... bigots!"

[shooshoomanjoe]

"why trans-people need to be banned from sports"

Reminds me of the 'natural talent' myth of a decade ago when white supremacists tried to make the claim that black people had an inherent advantage in sports.